8 ms·

> You are directing your ire at the wrong party. Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit, the only possible outcome (as you correctl

> You are directing your ire at the wrong party. Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit, the only possible outcome (as you correctly state) is the world becomes a worse place. Hachette obviously benefits from teaching would-be unlimited "lenders" a lesson. Even anti-DRM, "buy my books only if you can afford" authors were against this hare-brained lending scheme because the IA didn't even bother to buy a single copy of the books they were "lending". The blame squarely falls at the IA's feet; being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior, regardless of the righteousness of your cause or the depth of your conviction. If the world is better with an org in it, and it jeopardizes it's own ability to remain a going concern, it's clear to me who is culpable. "Too good to die" doesn't exist.

cess11 3y ago
[flagged]
- WoodenChair 3y ago
  > You don't consider it to be a right to revolt against tyranny? Do you think not being able to download all the free stuff you want is tyranny? "Tyranny" is defined as a "cruel and oppressive government or rule." How are you being oppressed and/or treated cruelly? You can think copyright terms are too long without the hyperbole.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I mean 'The Right to Read' sets up a story environment where Copyright/IP is a form of tyranny. I view any form of overly broad copyright as a form of government enforced tyranny itself. This can be anywhere from terms that last lifetimes. The lack of counter enforcement against actors bring false claims. And allowing very generic/simple systems to be copyrighted thereby enacting massive rent seeking behavior across most of the population.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      This is not a case of misuse of copyright. Books are copyrighted so authors can exist.
      - vundercind 3y ago
        Authors have no trouble existing without copyright at all, let alone some weaker version of copyright. Meanwhile, vanishingly few authors make a living at it, and not a lot more make beer money. It’s a pursuit that barely pays as it is, yet many books are written.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        It will pay less without copyright.
        cess11 3y ago
        Kinda weird to be arguing for monopolies. Ultimately, do you prefer them to be in the state or a privatised oligarchy?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        I'm not arguing for monopolies.
        Zigurd 3y ago
        Patents and copyright are a government granted right to a limited term monopoly, which is unique in that it is a right that had to be explicitly granted, because it was not assumed to be an unenumerated right, and the authors of the US constitution were generally opposed to government granted monopolies. It is also unique in that mere legislation could reduce the term of this right to an arbitrarily short duration. That's not how any other right works. Also unique is that other rights can't expire in your lifetime, and that the right is assignable.
  - cess11 3y ago
    Might want to read the comment I'm responding to: "being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior" I find it obvious that there are situations when illegal behaviour is justified, perhaps even virtous or obligatory. I'd like to know why "being an idealist" is considered the only relevant factor. As for copyright, I'm of the opinion that there exists no spirit world, and hence no spiritual labour, which means that immaterial rights lack foundation.
coldpie 3y ago
> being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior Just to be clear, it is your position that the IA's Wayback Machine and abandonware archives should also not exist, right?
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Just to be clear, it is your position that the IA's Wayback Machine and abandonware archives should also not exist, right? No, I fully support these missions. Both have defensible fair use protections and do not try to break new legal ground with flimsy justifications. I wish the IA were little more aggressive about not retroactively applying robots.txt rules on archived content. It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending. I am livid they risked their priceless archives for book piracy - that's not a great hill to die on.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    > It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending Indeed. It's maybe worth reflecting on the apparent conflict there. What info are you missing, that could explain the conflict? The IA folks aren't crazy, but they are opinionated and willing to take action where others might not, and the world was in a very crazy state at the time the decision was made. Consider some sympathy for the people leading the project you feel so passionately about.
    - vineyardmike 3y ago
      But they could issue a mea culpa, and move on. Admit defeat, pay a token fine or settlement, and keep their donations to preserve the rest of their archive. Why don't they cut out the rot, to preserve the rest of the archives. I know they had a mission, or some goal, or whatever, but it failed - it failed a long time ago. It can be right or wrong, i don't know. I want organizations to fight the battles that gain us new rights and freedoms. I know that they have a lot to lose here though, and they shouldn't risk it. Concretely, I was a big individual donor to the IA until this lawsuit. I support their mission, I love their work, I help (technically and financially) other organizations like local museums and non-profits handle their archival work. This is something important to me, and I really want their archives to persist. I stopped donating to the IA - and won't resume - until this lawsuit is resolved. I don't want to donate to the book publishers, and it looks that's going to be the outcome of their entire funds.
farts_mckensy 3y ago
Stupid laws that hurt society shouldn't be defended, and those that defend such laws simply because "it's the law" are not worthy of being taken seriously.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  If the law were stupid, I'd expect a more robust argument about how it's stupid in the IA's appeal. They are not arguing that. I have plenty of issues with copyright law as it's currently written and wholeheartedly support copyright reform. That's very different from any one party unilaterally suspending copyright "because of COVID"
  - farts_mckensy 3y ago
    Of course the laws are stupid. I dont care what IA said to defend themselves. They could have ineffective counsel. The entire concept of copyright in this historical moment is antithetical to a productive society. It is rent seeking, parasitic behavior. It is unsustainable and completely unenforcable in the digital age. The only mistake IA made is they were upfront about what they were doing. People pirate books all the time. It is trivially easy and there's virtually nothing publishers can do to stop it. And when it comes to law enforcement, the effort it would require to enforce the laws as they are written is obviously not worth it. If the laws are only enforced on good faith actors, what do you suppose that incentivizes? Reform is not possible; corporations control the legal system. The entire paradigm needs to be done away with.
hibernator149 3y ago
> The blame squarely falls at the IA's feet; being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior This way of thinking is the reason why we are losing so many great things. Laws are created by people to support a society we want to live in. When laws no longer sever the society, then the society must rise up and change them. Like with any bug, fixing it early is cheaper than fixing it later. > it's clear to me who is culpable "Look what you made me do. If you hadn't acted up I wouldn't have had to destroy you."
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I don't want to live in a society where authors don't get paid, so the laws are just fine.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    And it is pretty clear who would be first to exploit system where authors don't have copy rights. That is Amazon to start with followed by all other big companies who can effectively distribute the works.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    The vast, VAST majority of money that an author makes is from their advance. It is exceedingly rare for a book to sell even enough to cover that advance, and even rarer for it to have sales strong enough that the author sees meaningful, life changing residuals.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      And why should I even offer you an advance if I’m not going to make any money off your book. Heck, why should I invest any money in editing your book for that matter. I’m not sure it’s exceedingly rare for an author to not make some beer money on top of single dollar advances but it’s not a full-time job for many authors. It mostly works to support the day job or as a hobby. But many authors might as well self-publish today. I mostly have.
    - 3y ago
WalterBright 3y ago
> hare-brained Thank you for spelling this correctly!
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior ... Illegal as defined by the highly paid lobbyists of the trillion dollar copyright monopolies? It boggles my mind that such "laws" are even considered legitimate. > "Too good to die" doesn't exist. Tell that to Wikipedia and several other organizations which put a stop to stuff like SOPA/PIPA with a single day of blackout. I want to see them try to destroy Wikipedia over copyright nonsense.

cess11 3y ago

[flagged]

WoodenChair 3y ago
> You don't consider it to be a right to revolt against tyranny? Do you think not being able to download all the free stuff you want is tyranny? "Tyranny" is defined as a "cruel and oppressive government or rule." How are you being oppressed and/or treated cruelly? You can think copyright terms are too long without the hyperbole.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I mean 'The Right to Read' sets up a story environment where Copyright/IP is a form of tyranny. I view any form of overly broad copyright as a form of government enforced tyranny itself. This can be anywhere from terms that last lifetimes. The lack of counter enforcement against actors bring false claims. And allowing very generic/simple systems to be copyrighted thereby enacting massive rent seeking behavior across most of the population.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    This is not a case of misuse of copyright. Books are copyrighted so authors can exist.
    - vundercind 3y ago
      Authors have no trouble existing without copyright at all, let alone some weaker version of copyright. Meanwhile, vanishingly few authors make a living at it, and not a lot more make beer money. It’s a pursuit that barely pays as it is, yet many books are written.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        It will pay less without copyright.
        cess11 3y ago
        Kinda weird to be arguing for monopolies. Ultimately, do you prefer them to be in the state or a privatised oligarchy?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        I'm not arguing for monopolies.
        Zigurd 3y ago
        Patents and copyright are a government granted right to a limited term monopoly, which is unique in that it is a right that had to be explicitly granted, because it was not assumed to be an unenumerated right, and the authors of the US constitution were generally opposed to government granted monopolies. It is also unique in that mere legislation could reduce the term of this right to an arbitrarily short duration. That's not how any other right works. Also unique is that other rights can't expire in your lifetime, and that the right is assignable.
- cess11 3y ago
  Might want to read the comment I'm responding to: "being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior" I find it obvious that there are situations when illegal behaviour is justified, perhaps even virtous or obligatory. I'd like to know why "being an idealist" is considered the only relevant factor. As for copyright, I'm of the opinion that there exists no spirit world, and hence no spiritual labour, which means that immaterial rights lack foundation.

coldpie 3y ago

> being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior Just to be clear, it is your position that the IA's Wayback Machine and abandonware archives should also not exist, right?

sangnoir 3y ago
> Just to be clear, it is your position that the IA's Wayback Machine and abandonware archives should also not exist, right? No, I fully support these missions. Both have defensible fair use protections and do not try to break new legal ground with flimsy justifications. I wish the IA were little more aggressive about not retroactively applying robots.txt rules on archived content. It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending. I am livid they risked their priceless archives for book piracy - that's not a great hill to die on.
- coldpie 3y ago
  > It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending Indeed. It's maybe worth reflecting on the apparent conflict there. What info are you missing, that could explain the conflict? The IA folks aren't crazy, but they are opinionated and willing to take action where others might not, and the world was in a very crazy state at the time the decision was made. Consider some sympathy for the people leading the project you feel so passionately about.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    But they could issue a mea culpa, and move on. Admit defeat, pay a token fine or settlement, and keep their donations to preserve the rest of their archive. Why don't they cut out the rot, to preserve the rest of the archives. I know they had a mission, or some goal, or whatever, but it failed - it failed a long time ago. It can be right or wrong, i don't know. I want organizations to fight the battles that gain us new rights and freedoms. I know that they have a lot to lose here though, and they shouldn't risk it. Concretely, I was a big individual donor to the IA until this lawsuit. I support their mission, I love their work, I help (technically and financially) other organizations like local museums and non-profits handle their archival work. This is something important to me, and I really want their archives to persist. I stopped donating to the IA - and won't resume - until this lawsuit is resolved. I don't want to donate to the book publishers, and it looks that's going to be the outcome of their entire funds.

farts_mckensy 3y ago

Stupid laws that hurt society shouldn't be defended, and those that defend such laws simply because "it's the law" are not worthy of being taken seriously.

sangnoir 3y ago
If the law were stupid, I'd expect a more robust argument about how it's stupid in the IA's appeal. They are not arguing that. I have plenty of issues with copyright law as it's currently written and wholeheartedly support copyright reform. That's very different from any one party unilaterally suspending copyright "because of COVID"
- farts_mckensy 3y ago
  Of course the laws are stupid. I dont care what IA said to defend themselves. They could have ineffective counsel. The entire concept of copyright in this historical moment is antithetical to a productive society. It is rent seeking, parasitic behavior. It is unsustainable and completely unenforcable in the digital age. The only mistake IA made is they were upfront about what they were doing. People pirate books all the time. It is trivially easy and there's virtually nothing publishers can do to stop it. And when it comes to law enforcement, the effort it would require to enforce the laws as they are written is obviously not worth it. If the laws are only enforced on good faith actors, what do you suppose that incentivizes? Reform is not possible; corporations control the legal system. The entire paradigm needs to be done away with.

hibernator149 3y ago

> The blame squarely falls at the IA's feet; being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior This way of thinking is the reason why we are losing so many great things. Laws are created by people to support a society we want to live in. When laws no longer sever the society, then the society must rise up and change them. Like with any bug, fixing it early is cheaper than fixing it later. > it's clear to me who is culpable "Look what you made me do. If you hadn't acted up I wouldn't have had to destroy you."

robertlagrant 3y ago
I don't want to live in a society where authors don't get paid, so the laws are just fine.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  And it is pretty clear who would be first to exploit system where authors don't have copy rights. That is Amazon to start with followed by all other big companies who can effectively distribute the works.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  The vast, VAST majority of money that an author makes is from their advance. It is exceedingly rare for a book to sell even enough to cover that advance, and even rarer for it to have sales strong enough that the author sees meaningful, life changing residuals.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    And why should I even offer you an advance if I’m not going to make any money off your book. Heck, why should I invest any money in editing your book for that matter. I’m not sure it’s exceedingly rare for an author to not make some beer money on top of single dollar advances but it’s not a full-time job for many authors. It mostly works to support the day job or as a hobby. But many authors might as well self-publish today. I mostly have.
  - 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago

> hare-brained Thank you for spelling this correctly!

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior ... Illegal as defined by the highly paid lobbyists of the trillion dollar copyright monopolies? It boggles my mind that such "laws" are even considered legitimate. > "Too good to die" doesn't exist. Tell that to Wikipedia and several other organizations which put a stop to stuff like SOPA/PIPA with a single day of blackout. I want to see them try to destroy Wikipedia over copyright nonsense.